linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] usb: gadget: add quirk_ep_out_aligned_size field to struct usb

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <52796916.3010703@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:54:30 -0800
From:	David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC:	balbi@...com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] usb: gadget: add quirk_ep_out_aligned_size field
 to struct usb_gadget

On 11/05/2013 10:13 AM, David Cohen wrote:
> On 11/05/2013 07:41 AM, Alan Stern wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, David Cohen wrote:
>>
>>>>> +static inline size_t usb_ep_align_maxpacketsize(struct usb_ep *ep, size_t len)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	int aligned;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (ep->desc->bmAttributes & USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_INT)
>>>>> +		/*
>>>>> +		 * Interrupt eps don't need max packet size to be power of 2,
>>>>> +		 * so can't use cheap IS_ALIGNED() macro.
>>>>> +		 */
>>>>> +		aligned = !(len % ep->desc->wMaxPacketSize);
>>>>> +	else
>>>>> +		aligned = IS_ALIGNED(len, ep->desc->wMaxPacketSize);
>>>>
>>>> This isn't on a hot path, and I suspect that the extra "if" will
>>>> require nearly as much time as you save by not doing the division.  You
>>>> might as well always use the % operation.
>>>
>>> Perhaps if I use unlikely() on 'if' condition instead?
>>> Anyway I'll double check the costs of if + IS_ALIGNED vs modulo.
>>
>> You're missing the point.  You and I (not to mention anybody who ever
>> reads this code in the future) have already wasted more time talking
>> about it and trying to understand it than you will ever save by using
>> IS_ALIGNED.
>>
>> The difference to the computer is minimal at best.  Make things easier
>> for the programmers.
>
> I don't see it as complex :)
> But I'm fine with your proposal. I can send new patch dropping
> IS_ALIGNED() case.

At a second though, it's even better to drop both 'if' cases.
I can just return round_up(...) directly.

Br, David

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/